From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-01 15:14:52
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Thu Nov 01 2007, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Wed Oct 31 2007, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
>>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Patches should only be a high priority if they fix bugs... and in that
>>> case they should come with a test that breaks until the bug is fixed.
>> It is very useful and a sign of good software engineering if a test case
>> accompanies a bug fix. But patch submitters don't always have enough
>> time or knowledge of a library's test setup to submit test cases. I'd
>> rather fixes be prioritized based on severity rather than whether or not
>> they come with a test case.
> When I say "come with" I mean they should come into our source
> repository with a test case, which may be supplied by anyone,
> inlcuding the library maintainer. I don't think we should be just
> applying "bug fix" patches without being able to confirm that they
> actually fix bugs.
I don't know how to do that for system specific fixes on platforms Boost
isn't testing and I don't have access to. For libraries like
Boost.System and Boost.Filesystem I have to take such patches on faith.
Of course I inspect them to make sure they appear reasonable and don't
affect other platforms.
What you are saying is certainly the "right way" most of the time. But
it is hard to do for some of the more obscure platforms.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk